Be Advised

Apreche

This is the most concise guide to basic logical fallacies I have ever read. Before you flamewar again, make sure you read this. When you argue with someone check to see if they commit one of these violations. Then you don't even have to argue with them. Just say "that's a straw man" or "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" and you beat 'em.

http://www.paulstips.com/brainbox/pt/home.nsf/link/19062006-How-to-spot-a-bad-argument

trogdor9

That's a pretty nice article. I've looked around at the rest of the site and that guy seems pretty smart.

Hey, wait a second... You guys are pretty good at arguing. How about a How to Not Suck at Arguing episode?

Apreche

Great idea! We needed something for Thursday.

Rym

We could go two ways with this: How to argue properly, or how to argue to win. While they're not necessarily exclusive to one another, there is an important distinction.

I forsee multiple episodes on this topic.

Hasbro

I stumbled upon an incredibly comprehensive, nigh scientific, guide on how to argue, but ten minutes solid of searching has convinced me that it is lost to the netherspaces of the Internet.

http://www.ninjapirate.com/logic.html however, proves just as useful on conventional methods for debate.

MrPeriod

Thanks Hasbro. I was getting bored. More importantly, I want to take this moment to make sure everyone knows the difference between internet and Internet.

Ilmarinen

I stumbled upon an incredibly comprehensive, nigh scientific, guide on how to aruge, but ten minutes solid of searching has convinced me that it is lost to the netherspaces of the Internet.

You missed one.

MrPeriod

Nobody's perfect.

La Petit Mort

Arguing is about getting your point across, why should there be rules for it?

TheWhaleShark

So you're saying we should live in a society without rules? Anarchist. Who'd protect you when the Big Baddies come knocking on YOUR door?

Shaun

Because if you use fallacious logic, you're not getting your point across.

Shaun

That's a pretty good article. The only problem with it is the entry on Appeal to Authority., because it's not always a fallacy. An appeal to an inappropriate authority (the type that the article cited) is fallacious, but if you used an appropriate quote from Stephen Hawking in an argument about theoretical physics, there's no problem.

Apreche

Appeal to authority actually is a fallacy. For a more complete explanation of why read this: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Just because someone is an expert on a particular subject it doesn't mean that anything they say about that subject is automatically true. It might be damn good, but not automatically true.

Most often you see this argument take this form:

"My friend Joe is a (insert profession) and he says (insert something related to profession) sucks".

If someone makes this argument, you should attack this Joe character. Ask how much of an expert he is, how long he's been an expert, if he has biases, what other experts say, etc.

spiritfiend

It not always necessary to attack Joe. It might be the case that Joe really has no strong opinion on (insert something related to a profession) at all and the person presenting the argument is just using Joe to gain credibility (often this will happen). I would suggest asking Joe himself, or attacking his source of Joe's opinion before attacking Joe.

Ad hominem attacks should always be the last resort.

La Petit Mort

"So you're saying we should live in a society without rules? Anarchist. Who'd protect you when the Big Baddies come knocking on YOUR door?."

I'm not meaning it THAT way, I.E: in an argument Joe calls billy "stupid" that does not mean that Joe is not right only because he broke the rule.

EDIT: Actually, I heard Scott and Rym call each other stupid in the middle of heated arguments.

Rym

Making a logical fallacy does not invalidate your entire argument. It does, however, invalidate any claim you've made whose root lies with it.

Hasbro

I have been humbled. Each keystroke is now made in calculated trepidation. The coward in me desperately shies from using complex sentences for fear of mangling the structure. Alas.
On the idea of Appeals to Authority, I've been taught that in the case of a formal argument, your established credibility deals a great bit with the persuasiveness of your argument. As a regular Joe making a debate, you have no real credibility in most subjects to draw from, and thus are forced to support your position through numerous and varied citations from sources with more credibility on the subject than you. Gothfather makes a good point about the quality of the source and the way in which you cite a source forming the appeal as either a mark for or against your credibility. It's all about influencing your audience more than anything else, as most sides in an argument are already well cemented in their positions. As fallacious as it may seem to some, an appropriate citation of the Bible in an argument amidst an audience who consider the Bible a credible authority could prove an excellent point towards the success of your position. And in the end, the only winner in an argument is whoever persuades the most outside listeners to his side.

Rym

in the end, the only winner in an argument is whoever persuades the most outside listeners to his side.

Well, it depends on what you're arguing for. Some people argue to persuade. Others argue to seek the truth. Scott and I argue to make fun of eachothers' moms. ^_~

belarm

Thanks for the link, I enjoyed the article. I picked up Crimes Against Logic at a used bookstore, and found it to be fairly good, if rudimentary.


As for the appeal to authority, and wether or not it's ever appropriate, here's my view: It can be used in debate, but not in a true argument; that is, when debating the relative merits of two unprovable (or unproven) positions, appeals to authority are fine, as they add weight to your position. In a truly logical argument, it is of course inappropriate.

Hasbro

To respond to Rym: Wherein then does the difference between argument and discussion lie? Personally, I take discussion as a free exchange of ideas, where the parties involved may indeed have preconceived positions on the subject, but they are perfectly willing to allow those positions to evolve and be influenced by various points presented during the discussion. Through concession and understanding the sides are attempting to gain some greater perspective of a subject through this exchange. Seeking the truth, in your words.
And arguement then, by my understanding, would be like a discussion except with all sides already well grounded in their positions, intent with the sole purpose of persuading. They have already steeled themselves against what insight the other side may present and are thus attempting to logically and/or rhetorically outmaneuver the other parties into some sort of defeat. They seek no truth, only to "prove" that their position is the correct one. This is often quite difficult, if not impossible, bringing forth my conclusion that the true winner is the person who convinces the most listeners of his position. (Read: in arguments with no audience, both sides are losers.)
And the states are maleable, any conversation can openly fluctuate between the two as well as have different parties playing at different goals. Perhaps one side is attempting a discussion, while the other is hellbent on arguing.

Rym

I use a different definition of argument. I took several classes on the art of argumentation back at uni, and the classical meaning has nothing to do with what most people consider to be an "argument."

Hasbro

Yeah, I came up with that definition while I was walking my dog, so I'll default to you on that point. I would be interested to know what is considered the classical definition of an argument if you could possibly condense it into post form or toss a link my direction.